CCPR/C/112/D/2325/2013 articles 7 and 10 pertaining to the decline of the author’s health in prison. However, in the light of the information made available to it, the Committee notes that the author was taken into the care of the medical centre of New Bell Prison from the onset of his symptoms, that he was examined by various physicians outside the prison, and that he had undergone numerous medical examinations, including one ordered by the Ministry of Public Health in May 2014. The Committee therefore considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claim under articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility, and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that his rights under article 11 were violated because, according to him, he was imprisoned for breach of contract. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that the prohibition of detention for debt, enshrined in article 11 of the Covenant, does not apply to criminal offences related to civil debts and that, in the case of fraud and negligent or fraudulent bankruptcy, the offender may be punished with imprisonment even when no longer able to pay the debts. 29 The Committee notes that, in this case, the author is facing criminal prosecution for fraud and that the charges against him do not relate to breach of contract but fall under the scope of criminal law. Consequently, the Committee finds this claim incompatible ratione materiae with article 11 of the Covenant and thus inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 30 So far as the claim under article 12 is linked to the claim under article 11, the Committee finds it inadmissible on the same grounds. 8.8 Regarding the allegations of violations of articles 1, 2, 4, paragraph 2, 5, paragraph 2, 6, 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, and 15, paragraph 1, the Committee considers that, in this case, the information provided by the author does not sufficiently substantiate his claims for the purposes of admissibility. Consequently, this part of the communication is declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.9 The Committee considers that the author’s claim regarding the protection of his right to intellectual property is incompatible ratione materiae with the rights provided for by the Covenant and thus inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 9. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2, 3 and 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol; (b) 29 30 16 That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. See communication No. 1342/2005, Gavrilin v. Belarus, Views adopted on 28 March 2007, para. 7.3. See communication No. 1312/2004, Latifulin v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 10 March 2010, para. 7.2. GE.14-23228 (E)